Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 521 (MP)

Sharda Bai v. State of M. P.

2012-05-10

RAJENDRA MENON

body2012
ORDER 1. Challenging the order passed by the S. D. O. exercising power in a proceedings held under Section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 vide order dated 8/11/10 setting aside the election of the petitioner on the post of ‘Sarpanch’ of Gram Panchayat Torniya, Tahsil Harsud, Distt. Khandwa, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Petitioner was a candidate who had participated in the election conducted in the year 2010 for the post of ‘Sarpanch’. The post in question was reserved for a woman Scheduled Tribe candidate and the petitioner submitted her nomination for the said seat. In the statutory form prescribed under Rule 31 of the M. P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam 1995 and form 4-B thereto, in the form submitted, petitioner made a declaration to the effect that she is a scheduled tribe person belonging to the caste Bhunjiya. Even though, Smt. Asha Bai raised an objection with regard to caste of the petitioner, the returning officer rejected the same. Petitioner’s nomination was accepted. The election was conducted and petitioner was declared elected as a ‘Sarpanch’ of the Gram Panchayat. 3. Challenge to the election was made in a proceeding held under Section 122 as indicated hereinabove and in this proceeding held, the impugned order has been passed declaring the election of the petitioner as null and void only on the ground that in support of her contention that she belongs to the scheduled tribe community, petitioner has not submitted any caste certificate issued by the competent authority. 4. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned Sr. Counsel invited my attention to the order passed by the election tribunal as contained in Annexure P-1 and pointed out that on the basis of the documents and evidence that came on record, the finding recorded by the election tribunal is that the petitioner did not belong to the Bhunjiya caste which is a scheduled tribe caste but the Tribunal has interfered into the matter only because a certificate issued by the competent authority in support of the aforesaid fact is not filed. 5. 5. Taking me through the requirement of Rule 3 (1) of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and the statutory form prescribed for as contained in form 4 B, Shri V. S. Shroti submits that in these statutory rules and form prescribed, there is no requirement of submitting any caste certificate or document in support of the social status of the person. It only warrants certain declaration by the candidate and the attestation of the same by witnesses and once the requirement of the Rule is fulfilled on the basis of the non-submission of a document, which is not contemplated under the Rules, interference into the matter is said to be unsustainable. 6. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not belong to the Bhunjiya community. However, in this regard, the fact remains that the finding recorded by the election tribunal has not been challenged by the respondents and therefore, it cannot be looked into. 7. That being so, this Court is required to accept the finding and it has to be held that the petitioner is a person belonging to the Bhunjiya community and to that extent, no interference into the matter is called for. 8. The only question now is whether submission of a caste certificate is a mandatory requirement, non-compliance of which makes the election illegal. Shri V. S. Shroti submits that Rule 3 (1) of the Nirvachan Niyam of 1995 only contemplates the nomination of the member is to be made, it is stipulated therein that the nomination can be made for a seat reserved for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe or a person belonging to other backward classes or a women candidate in a prescribed proforma as contained in sub-rule 2.31 and in the sub rule form 4 B is prescribed for the election to the post of Sarpanch. 9. A perusal of the said form 4 B indicates that there is no specific provision that for being elected as a ‘Sarpanch’ in a reserved seat, a caste certificate is to be submitted, neither in the rule nor in the statutory form, there is any such requirement. The only requirement under the form is a declaration by the person concerned. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the declaration made by the petitioner is incorrect and unsuitable. 10. The only requirement under the form is a declaration by the person concerned. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the declaration made by the petitioner is incorrect and unsuitable. 10. That being so, as it is not stipulated under the Rules to submit any certificate, the election Tribunal cannot interfere into the matter on such a consideration. Once, the rule permits contesting the election in a reserved seat in accordance with the declaration done and there is nothing in the rule to show that the nomination is to be supported by any caste certificate then on a condition which is not in the stipulated rule, election cannot be declared as null and void, and, therefore, interfering with the election of the petitioner on such ground cannot be upheld. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order impugned quashing the election of the petitioner is set aside and petitioner is permitted to continue on the elected post till her term is over. 12. With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.